(25-04-2013 03:26 PM)Logica Humano Wrote: It is completely irrelevant whether or not you own and care for your weapons when the majority do not. I can and will apply these statistics of GUN OWNERS to GUN OWNERS.

(25-04-2013 08:39 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: Something else to keep in mind is that military personnel, career military professionals, and law enforcement, all have opinions on this too. And wouldn't you know it, some of them even support better gun laws. Well...I'll be damned.

Well, everyone is an individual and has their own personal opinions. Those are all very diverse groups. What you call "better gun laws" I'd call "more restrictive gun laws". It's a non-biased term, and accurate term imho.

They are not saying the same thing. One is saying that they are better. One is saying they are more restrictive. You could say that they are better and more restrictive and neither contradict nor make your statement redundant.

(24-04-2013 04:02 PM)Dark Light Wrote: What do you mean it is the legal thing to do? Anything that is law is legal. It's legal to own nuclear bombs if it isn't restricted by law. It's legal to mass murder Jews if legislation is passed.

By legal, I mean gun restriction is entirely constitutional.

Even the constitution can be amended. It has been many times. The statement that we could make it law because it's legal doesn't mean anything. I am all for certain gun restrictions. The thing is, the things that should be restricted, are already restricted. The things that shouldn't be restricted are sometimes restricted at state and local levels.

Even the constitution can be amended. It has been many times. The statement that we could make it law because it's legal doesn't mean anything. I am all for certain gun restrictions. The thing is, the things that should be restricted, are already restricted. The things that shouldn't be restricted are sometimes restricted at state and local levels.

It means everything to the current constitution and debate, especially since a primary component to pro-gun arguments is that it is unconstitutional to impose stricter legislation. Do you know how incredibly hard it is to even change the constitution, let alone in such a polarized political landscape these days? The statement that the constitution can be amended is meaningless.

(25-04-2013 04:26 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: I'd say better and more restrictive. Better in that a lot of our current laws are awful and either complex or convoluted or full of loopholes. Or all 3.

There is also the fact that many of the federal guns laws are not enforced.

Criminals who could be charged with violations of federal law simply are not.
Non-federal prosecutors don't bother. They don't want to make a federal case of it.
The accused are charged with the state crime and not the federal crime.

These are laws against possession of firearms or ammunition by felons, possession of stolen firearms, transport or shipping or receipt of stolen firearms across state lines, carrying or using a firearm during the commission of violent or drug crime, and so on.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.